Search results
1 – 2 of 2Oliver von Dzengelevski, Torbjørn H. Netland, Ann Vereecke and Kasra Ferdows
When is it more profitable for multinational manufacturers to manufacture in high-cost environments and when in low-cost environments? While the literature offers many cues to…
Abstract
Purpose
When is it more profitable for multinational manufacturers to manufacture in high-cost environments and when in low-cost environments? While the literature offers many cues to answer this question, too little empirical research directly addresses this. In this study, we quantitatively and empirically investigate the financial effect of companies' production footprint in low-cost and high-cost environments for different types of production networks.
Design/methodology/approach
Using the data of 770 multinational manufacturing companies, we analyze the relationship between production footprints and profitability during four calendar semesters in 2018 and 2019 (N = 2,940), investigating the moderating role of companies' production network type.
Findings
We find that companies with networks distinguished by both high levels of product complexity and process sophistication profit the most from producing to a greater extent in high-cost countries. For these companies, shifting production to low-cost countries would be associated with negative performance implications.
Practical implications
Our findings suggest that the production geography of companies should be attuned to their network type, as defined by the companies' process sophistication and product complexity. Manufacturing in low-cost countries is not always the best choice, as doing so can adversely affect profits if the products are highly innovative and the production processes are complex.
Originality/value
We contribute to the scarce empirical literature on managing global production networks and provide a data-driven analysis that contributes to answering some of the enduring questions in this critical area.
Details
Keywords
Arifur Khan, Sutharson Kanapathippillai and Steven Dellaportas
The purpose of this study is threefold: to examine the impact of a remuneration committee (RC) on the level of chief executive officer (CEO) remuneration; whether firms with a RC…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is threefold: to examine the impact of a remuneration committee (RC) on the level of chief executive officer (CEO) remuneration; whether firms with a RC, pay a premium to CEOs with different skill sets (general or specific); and whether a pay premium mitigates the potential for CEO turnover.
Design/methodology/approach
This study uses a sample of 5,305 firm-year observations on a data set drawn from companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange for the period 2007 to 2014. The authors use ordinary least squares as well as logit regression techniques to test the formulated hypotheses. Difference in difference and propensity score matching techniques were undertaken to address the endogeneity concerns.
Findings
The findings show that firms with a RC pay a higher total remuneration to CEOs compared to firms without a RC. Furthermore, firms with a RC, value and reward CEOs with general skills by paying a premium not offered to CEOs with industry-specific skills. Paying a premium, in turn, mitigates CEO turnover by strengthening the CEO’s commitment to the organisation.
Originality/value
The study helps us to understand the critical role played by the RC in the remuneration of CEOs. The findings show that RCs act as an effective governance mechanism to deal with issues of executive remuneration and to retain skilled CEOs. Additionally, CEOs who acquire and develop general managerial skills will be able to extract higher pay from improved bargaining power. The findings will be of relevance to shareholders, regulators and company management who have an interest in executive pay and performance.
Details